A New Ripper Book

[Tom_Wescott]

I appreciate that Dan Norder is reluctant in showing his face around these parts due to the money owed to authors but allowing him to use your Casebook account is a little over the top.

Play nice, or I'll recommend your site to Pirate Jack.

Since none of us HAVE read the book, and can only comment on press blurbs, it's not surprising that most of the discussion has centered around the retarded cover he posted on Amazon. While I don't personally agree that the Mary Kelly image is 'pornography', you'll notice I haven't been challenging AP much on this issue. That's because I agree that the cover should be changed. Not just for reasons of decency, but because his book will represent our field to a good number of people, and it's clearly a poor representation of us.

Also, the idea that no two Ripper victims were killed by the same man is just plain silly. So, we haven't seen anything new or impressive in the work as of yet. However, because Cook enjoys a decent reputation for his previous work, I'm keeping an open mind that his Ripper book might contain something of merit.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[auspirograph]

I wouldn't pay any attention to anything coming from that site. Tom Wescott

Tom,

I appreciate that Dan Norder is reluctant in showing his face around these parts due to the money owed to authors but allowing him to use your Casebook account is a little over the top.

You appear to have strayed somewhat from the topic of this thread, which is, Andrew Cook's new book, and for which I expressed an opinion.

It was Ben's disagreement on the actress Keira Knightly which I found rather more acute than anything you may have to say. And I doubt you could pay attention to anything as the site is a free resource, the choice is there.

But that's the beauty of having democracy, Andrew Cook's book has demonstrated that despite a few 'experts' wishing to penetrate the vox populi with their own delusions of grandeur.

Like most reasonable people reading this thread, I'm also prepared to wait for Jonathan to pass on any further details on this long awaited book, or even better, to actually read it before forming half-baked speculations.

[Tom_Wescott]

Does anyone from the Casebook actually contribute to the Ripper Writers forum? I can't imagine anything more useless. And if you do you should be ashamed. It's webmaster pretty much soiled his reputation for all time a couple of years back and has done nothing since but poor more dirt on an already bad name. I wouldn't pay any attention to anything coming from that site.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[babybird67]

hi Caz

no apology needed, it was my dense brain not picking up on things! Your position is much clearer now...takes a while sometimes for words to sink in, not your fault!

I think we concur, in the main, as you have said.

[caz]

Hi bb,

I think for the most part we actually agree. Either you simply misunderstood what I was actually saying in my last post to this thread, or I did a very poor job of explaining things. I'm happy to go with the second option and apologise.

I have said all along that we can't yet ascertain how the cover is being justified, therefore all is speculation. Just like you, I doubt very much that the intention was to appeal to any appetites of a carnal (fleshly) nature at the violent and perverted end of the scale. I thought you might have recognised that I was quoting from the old marriage ceremony to illustrate my point that nobody but a complete fool would have chosen this cover 'unadvisedly, lightly or wantonly' and certainly not with any intention to 'satisfy men's carnal lusts' etc etc. I obviously didn't make it clear enough that, unlike Cap'n Jack, I didn't think for one second that anyone involved with marketing this book could be that much of an arse. But then it's not exactly HarperCollins is it?

My question is and remains that if the cover was going to be justified (by anyone) on the grounds that the great unwashed outside of our sacred ripper halls wouldn't even recognise what the image was supposed to be (which is kind of redundant now we've been shown the latest three-legged treat they have in store for the casual browser) what would it be doing there at all, when it could tuck itself inside out of any potential harm's way and let an image that everyone could relate to take pride of place instead?

Incidentally, I have never felt the need to censor my daughter's access, at any age, to anything she could find for herself.

Love,

Caz
X

[John Bennett]

Cheers Mark, I had a feeling that it was somewhere here!

[Cap'n Jack]

John, ask Chris.

[m_w_r]

Where does this quote come from AP?

John -

Weirdly, it's from the previously-controversial "Ripper Writers" website (see this link), and the same thing is on page 11 of this thread.

Regards,

Mark

[Ben]

the fine actress Keira Knightly

Ooh, I don't know about that!

[John Bennett]

Where does this quote come from AP?

[Cap'n Jack]

It's a step in the right direction, according to the ripper riters, bless 'em.
Line 'em up and I'll shoot 'em down:

'Well, the cover of Andrew Cook’s new book, Jack the Ripper: Case Closed, has certainly brought home the view that the Whitechapel murders are anything but a jaunt through musty draws of a genealogist’s picnic.

The gentle reminder that this remains an unsolved story of historic true crime appears to have been missed and I gratefully have noticed that Chris P has attempted to bring the debate back to the actual contents of Cook’s book, which is really the point I suppose.

What is wrong with the reading public today when it judges a book by its cover and a theory by its title, as in the purported Diary of Jack the Ripper? Has it lost all sense of common sense and is deemed so incompetent to form rational opinions that it is to be saved by the scare campaigns of the likes of Mr. AP Wolf. Scare campaigns that argue against the bringing of awareness to the treasured values of opposing the portrayal of motiveless sexual serial murders, Wolf claims to uphold.

Mr. Wolf employs the term ‘pornography’ in its modern sense and has forgotten that this is 2009, readers are far more educated and discerning than in the days of his own book on the mythologies of Thomas Hayne Cutbush served up as a ploy to stare into the mirror that only sees the face of Colin Wilson in drag. Although Mr. Wolf is admirably gaining some offshore capital of his own from attacks upon Mr. Cook’s study and yes, perhaps unfortunate and sensational cover decision, any new and reasonable book would of course suffice for the purpose to a frustrated writer.

Recently, a television advertisement was banned in the UK because it was deemed ‘too violent’ for British audiences. It featured the fine actress Keira Knightly who portrayed the abused woman of a jealous boyfriend. Keira said that she was drawn to do the ad for a British charity because, “Domestic violence kills two women every day but we rarely hear about it.”

Chris Hirst, of the Grey London ad agency explained, “Part of the campaign is to raise awareness about domestic violence, and spark debate, which the advert has done, even if it doesn’t make it on television.” The London Sun reported that the clip, titled “The Cut,” has been viewed by more than a million times on YouTube – not Susan Boyle numbers, but it hopefully gets the message across.

It is a wonder that the cover of a book would draw such an emotive response from least of all readers purportedly interested and involved with the study of historic true crime. It would be understandable for those who have not seen the crime scene photo of Mary Kelly or the bolster supposedly in it before, but for an image that has appeared countless times in print and cyberspace without a modicum of distress, it is strange.

Unfortunately, murders happen, a warped minority kills women, it is the responsibility of media to raise awareness and spark debate; copycats and domestic abusers are held responsible for their own actions.

Andrew Cook’s work appears a step in the right direction in examining the press sensation that was and is Jack the Ripper. Along with other studies on Victorian press coverage of the Whitechapel murders, this new book is a welcome addition to the corpus in my view as it places under the microscope the press persona and newspaper reports, which are heavily relied upon as primary sources.

That is, the communal creations to remain commercially viable of Victorian journals beginning with the Star and Pall Mall Gazette running through the conservative columns of The Times and its associated newspapers that kept a Victorian society informed of the conditions existing in the East End and of the administration responsible for its maintenance and safety.'

[Stephen Thomas]

Stephen
'aving a larf is right.
Just take solace in Bob Marley's lyric that:
'whosoever diggeth the pit, shall fall in it.'

Hi AP

Yes, I understand AP and moreover...........

When the blind lead the blind they are likely to fall in the ditch together

As the Good Book says.

[Cap'n Jack]

Stephen
'aving a larf is right.
Just take solace in Bob Marley's lyric that:
'whosoever diggeth the pit, shall fall in it.'

[babybird67]

nothing to do with the Cook book...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8050110.stm

just thought some of you here might be interested in a similar debate going on about the Manic Street Preachers new album cover. Obvious differences in that the cover of the record is art, not life, but interesting just the same.

[Chris]

Would the Kelvin MacKenzie quoted on the cover be the most notorious tabloid newspaper editor of 20th Century Britain or some hitherto unheard of Historian or Ripper expert?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin_MacKenzie

Might someone be 'aving a larf here?

I suppose he might be an obvious choice as an interviewee for a TV documentary entitled "Jack the Ripper: Tabloid Myth". If so, maybe it's just a snippet from his interview?